John R. Vile, William D. Pederson, Frank J. Williams, eds. James Madison: Philosopher,
Founder, and Statesman. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2008. xiv + 302 pp. $55.00 (cloth),
ISBN 978-0-8214-1831-4; $26.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8214-1832-1.
Reviewed by Matt Harris
Published on H-Law (January, 2011)
Commissioned by Christopher R. Waldrep
Reassessing James Madison’s Life and Legacy: Primus Inter Pares?
The public’s fascination with the founding fathers
shows no signs of letting up. In the past fifteen years
there has been a steady stream of books published on the
founding fathers, covering their wartime exploits, their
efforts at nation-building, how they treated their slaves,
the relationships they had with their wives, and their role
in building the new nation. Books on the usual suspects
have all been published, to considerable acclaim. Ron
Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton, David Hackett Fischer’s
Washington’s Crossing, David McCullough’s John Adams,
and Joseph Ellis’s Founding Brothers have all either been
on bestseller lists and/or won big prizes.[1] James Madison has not fared as well, but he has not been neglected,
either. While he has not had the attention in the popular
press that the Washingtons or Adamses have enjoyed, he
has, nonetheless, been studied by scholars whose work
has been published by major university presses. These
works, written by historians and political scientists, have
explored Madison’s views on constitutional theory, the
Bill of Rights, and, more recently, his accomplishments
in his retirement years.[2]
and religious freedom, Madison as president and party
leader, and Madison and the Supreme Court. Though
some of the essays lack originality and insight, they offer a trenchant insight into why Madison is important
“for understanding the American experiment in constitutional government” (p. vii).
John Vile’s essay “James Madison and Constitution
Paternity” discusses Madison’s “credentials as a Founding Father.” While he does not grapple with the arguments that Harold Shultz raised long ago in his wellknown piece “James Madison: Father of the Constitution? ” published in The Quarterly Journal of the Library
of Congress in 1980, the essay is still useful for its insights comparing Madison’s accomplishments to those
of the other delegates. Vile notes that Madison never
felt comfortable for being called the “father of the Constitution.” Vile does not like the title either, and takes to
task scholars who have accorded Madison the label without considering that the Constitution was the work, as
Madison put it, of “ ‘many heads and many hands’ ” (p.
41). Yet, despite his criticism of other scholars for giving Madison too much credit for drafting the Constitution, he praises Madison for taking notes at the Constitutional Convention, writing an important tract on republican government–the Federalist Papers–and for getting
the Bill of Rights ratified. Because of these accomplishments, Vile believes that Madison stands out as a “first
among equals” when it comes to “constitutional paternity” (p. 52).
This book fits with the latter group. It is a collection of
fifteen essays presented by political scientists and historians at Louisiana State University Shreveport in 2006. The
essays, though not of equal quality, cover Madison the
“Philosopher, Founder, and Statesman,” which is the subtitle of the book. It is divided into six sections spanning
a range of topics including Madison’s intellectual influences, Madison’s constitutional contributions, Madison
1
H-Net Reviews
Another essay, Alan Gipson’s “Inventing the Extended Republic,” assesses Federalist Nos. 10 and 51 and
argues that they did not play a role in either constructing
or ratifying the Constitution. In advancing this claim, his
work covers a well-trodden path first advanced by Linda
Grant Depauw in her award-winning book, The Eleventh
Pillar: New York State and the Federal Constitution(1964),
in which she argues that the Federalist Papers were too
abstract and sophisticated for most New Yorkers to understand. As a result, she explains, Madison’s defense of
the Constitution did not have much of an impact convincing New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution. Gipson
advances a similar point, though he does not cite Depauw
in his essay. Drawing on the work of Gordon Wood,
Larry Kramer, Jack Rakove, Michael Zuckert, and others,
Gipson contends that Madison’s views of an “extended
republic” did not influence the ratification campaign because delegates believed there were more pressing issues
than whether the new republican government could exist
in a small geographical area.
Grunes posits that Madison’s relentless support for “freedom of conscience” and separation of church and state
made him a champion of religious liberty, even surpassing the father of religious liberty himself, Thomas Jefferson. Grunes writes that Madison displayed a remarkable consistency throughout his career articulating why
it was wrong to privilege one religion over another, or
to use taxpayer monies to support religious causes. He
laments the fact that Madison’s writings have not been
as influential as Jefferson’s, whose famous metaphor first
entered the American lexicon in 1947 when Supreme
Court Justice Hugo Black popularized it in his famous
opinion in Everson v. Board of Education.
Since that time, the “wall of separation” metaphor has
become the template against which most justices have
evaluated religious liberty cases in the United States.
Even so, Grunes writes, Madison has not escaped the
notice of the Supreme Court. Justice Wiley Rutledge
appended the entire Memorial and Remonstrance to his
dissenting opinion in Everson, while later justices drew
upon the Detached Memoranda to provide a philosophical justification explaining why school prayer at graduation ceremonies violated liberty of conscience, or how depictions of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms privileged one religious tradition over another. For these reasons, Grunes thinks that the modern Court should give
more weight to Madison’s phraseology of “perfect separation” and less on Jefferson’s separation of church and
state (p. 122).
Mary Stockwell’s essay evaluating the friendship between Madison and Alexander Hamilton is another interesting piece. In “Madison and Hamilton: The End of a
Friendship” she discusses how the partisanship strife of
the 1790s divided the two men and ended their friendship. Her analysis of their work on the Federalist Papers is particularly interesting, although she does not
take into consideration Alpheus Thomas Mason’s influential article, “The Federalist–A Split Personality” (1952),
wherein he provides a rich analysis of Madison’s and
As arresting as Grunes’s thesis is, there are several
Hamilton’s collaboration in the Federalist Papers, explorshortcomings that mar his work. First, he gives Jeffering how they diverged on matters of national power,
son short shrift and does not explain how his writings
state sovereignty, and the role of the judiciary.
compare in scope and impact to Madison’s. Second, he
One of the more provocative essays is Rodney does not contextualize Madison’s Memorial and RemonGrune’s “James Madison and Religious Freedom.” Grunes strance and Detached Memorandum, which would have
argues that “Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ac- bolstered his claims advancing Madison as a serious recorded Thomas Jefferson a higher profile, no American ligious thinker. There is no discussion, for example, of
founder contributed more than James Madison in devel- whom Madison’s writings were intended to address, the
oping the nation’s ideas on freedom of conscience, the impact they had, or how his contemporaries regarded
free exercise of religion, and the separation of church and the work. Similarly, Grunes provides little discussion on
state” (p. 105). Such a bold statement will no doubt raise Madison and the free exercise clause, although he spends
the ire of Jefferson admirers, who believe that Jefferson’s considerable attention on the establishment clause. Thus,
metaphor of church and state has placed him in a posi- it is not clear what liberty of conscience really means for
tion of preeminence as the nation’s protector of religious Madison.
liberty. Still, Grunes’s daring claim merits considerable
The last third of the essays are not as strong as the
attention.
first. Essays like “President James Madison’s AppointDrawing on Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance ments to the U.S. Supreme Court” by the distinguished
Against Religious Assessments (1785), as well as his De- political scientist Henry J. Abraham, are short and thus
tached Memoranda (before 1832), a more obscure writing, do not provide much clarity on this part of Madison’s
2
H-Net Reviews
career. Other essays, such as “James Madison: Brilliant
Theorist, Failed Tactician” by Byron W. Daynes and Mark
Hopkins and “The Legislative Messages of the Madison
Administration” by Samuel B. Hoff, are generally helpful
for providing a quantitative analysis of Madison’s presidential years, providing a number of charts and graphs.
The final essay, by James Read, explores “Madison’s Response to Nullification,” which retraces much of the same
ground that Drew McCoy covered more than twenty
years ago in his The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy (1989). Echoing McCoy,
Read asserts that John C. Calhoun’s attempts to co-opt
Madison’s support during the nullification crisis both
angered and frustrated the aging statesmen as Calhoun
drew upon Madison’s writings to justify nullification.
freedom of conscience, and for “understanding the American experiment in constitutional government” (p. vii).
Notes
[1]. Three of these studies have won the Pulitzer
Prize: Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2000); David McCullough, John Adams (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 2001); and David Hackett Fischer, Washington’s Crossing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton
(New York: Penguin Press, 2004) won the Yale Book
Award and the George Washington Book Prize.
[2]. See, for example, Gary Rosen, American Compact: James Madison and the Problem of the Founding
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999); Richard
Despite these criticisms, however, these essays pro- Labunksi, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of
vide a rich and nuanced look at Madison’s life and legacy. Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006); and
In addition, they suggest new lines of inquiry for schol- Ralph Ketcham, The Madisons at Montpelier: Reflections
ars to pursue. Finally, they force us to grapple with the on the Founding Couple (Charlottesville: University of
editors’ claim that Madison was indeed primus inter pares Virginia Press, 2009).
among his countrymen with respect to liberty under law,
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at:
https://networks.h-net.org/h-law
Citation: Matt Harris. Review of Vile, John R.; Pederson, William D.; Williams, Frank J., eds., James Madison:
Philosopher, Founder, and Statesman. H-Law, H-Net Reviews. January, 2011.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=29312
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoncommercialNo Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
3